Tipos de Riesgos Financieros

In view of supporting an integrated approach and ensuring a complementary implementation of all funds in the region, the MC is responsible for all OPs in Languedoc- Roussillon namely “Regional Competitiveness and Employment – ESF Languedoc- Roussillon”, “Rural Development – EAFRD Languedoc-Roussillon” and the Fisheries Fund (Préfecture de la région Languedoc-Roussillon 2007).

The MC is composed of the Préfet, regional members of parliament (deputees and senators), the State representatives in the region, the local authorities, co-financing institutions, social and economic partners, representatives of the research and innovation sector as well as environmental representatives. Representatives of the European Commission are associated with the works of the MC.

The DATAR also takes part in the MC meetings. Each region has one responsible authority for the region at DATAR (e.g. one person at DATAR responsible for Languedoc-Roussillon). This person then attends the MC meetings (approximately two meetings per year). The role of the DATAR at the meetings is mainly to explain or “translate” the national and EU Regulations to the MC participants, which has been much appreciated by the MAs. For instance, when the Commission changed the allowed shared of financing for photovoltaic and solar energy, the DATAR decided on a methodology with the EC and then explained it in the MC meetings or answered questions in the case of doubts or misunderstandings (Interview DATAR).

Information dissemination

The information about the OP and the outcomes of the MC meetings are being disseminated regularly to the partners and authorities at all administrative levels which is much appreciated by the MA (Interviews MA and DATAR).

Effectiveness of participation in the MC meetings

MC members do not have voting rights; they participate in the discussions (e.g. content of the AIR). According to the MA, the participants in the MC often seem to be present because they are obliged to as “active participation is lacking”. In the opinion of the MA, this is because the issues discussed in the MC meetings are too technical and too complex but cannot be simplified to a degree to support the participation of all social and economic

partners. There is more active participation in the framework of specific thematic seminars and trainings (e.g. training on the Joint European Resources for Micro-to-Medium Enterprises Initiative (JEREMIE) with representatives of the banking and financial sector) (Interview MA).

This view is shared by the DATAR representative interviewed. In his opinion, the MC meetings are often used as platforms for expressing wishes and concerns which often are not based on profound EU knowledge (Interview DATAR).

Moreover, the MA argues that the involvement of multiple partners currently results in more complex and time-consuming decision-making processes. The solution is that in preparation of the 2014-2020 period, more efforts will be made to explain the OP technicalities to the partners involved given that judging from the comments in the MC meetings the partners do not have sufficient knowledge of EU funds, regulations etc (Interview MA). A representative of the Conseil Général des Pyrénées-Orientales criticised the MC meetings for being a “platform for presenting information on statistics” rather than an platform for debate. According to this interviewee, the most fruitful meetings are the informal discussions preceding the official sessions (Questionnaire MC).

Cooperation in monitoring tasks from the point of view of a project

The Lead Partner ALOGEA of the project analysed worked together with four different contracted service providers (architects, economists, label certification, etc) on the monitoring requirements. The partnership was considered satisfactory and rather efficient (rating of 4 points out of 5) (Questionnaire Project ALOGEA).

4.7

Evaluation

Only the MA and the DATAR have an input in informing decisions about evaluation activities; the reports are published and disseminated online as well as in the newsletter (Interviews MA and DATAR).

At the DATAR, there is a specific unit responsible for carrying out evaluation activities. The DATAR proposes evaluation topics as well as common layouts and provisions for the terms of reference. The evaluations carried out in the OPs are an important part of the DATAR’s portfolio as the coordinator of the funds and OPs (which will be maintained in 2014-2020) (Interview DATAR).

The governance of the OP has not been subject to evaluation (AIR 2011; Interviews).

4.8

Outlook

Changes in the political administrative structure in France

As a result of the last presidential elections in France, the country has been going through some institutional changes which have important implications for the governance structure of the EU funds implementation in the 2014-2020 period. In the period of 2014-2020, the regions will in fact gain in independence from the government and the role of the préfectures is becoming increasingly unclear. The ERDF will then be 100% decentralised. The ESF will be decentralised which means the number of actors will increase (while it was only implemented by a national programme until now) and so will the EAFRD. Moreover, in

creating a multi-fund approach combining the ESF, ERDF and EAFRD at regional level. This means that in the 2014-2020 period, 100% of the MA responsibilities will be given to the Region meaning that the government will no longer have a say and will only have a coordinating role. The Region will from then on be corresponding with the European Commission and the DATAR, in contrast to the Préfet (Interviews MA and DATAR).

Future plans based on lessons learned

The MA argued that in order for the partners to be better involved in the next programming period of 2014-2020, the thematic concentration of the OP must be precise enough to clarify which partners are most relevant to the development of the programme. The partners must also be better informed about the functioning of EU funds in general and the ERDF and the OP in specific. This can be achieved through specific trainings for social and economic partners (Interview MA).

On the other hand, a representative of the Conseil Général des Pyrénées-Orientales, who is a member of the MC committee, argued that the requirement of a strong thematic concentration in the future OP will make it difficult to take on board the opinions and interests of a large number of partners, especially given the stark differences between the territories of the region. This in turn will result in a misrepresentation of the region (Questionnaire MC).

According to the DATAR representative, public consultations should become obligatory and systematic and they should be more flexible for involving partners. Also, the European Commission should increasingly share good practices on the involvement of partners in other countries and OPs. Most importantly, a single Ministry should be chosen as the responsible authority in contrast to blame and responsibility shifting (Interview DATAR). The draft OP for 2014-2020 is now being commented by the départements and the civil society. The feedback and exchange helps shaping the OP. However, in contrast to the programming in 2007, the feedback and comments are collected electronically rather than in meetings as this proves to be more effective (Interview MA).

Although the financial resources and staff capacities impede efficient implementation, monitoring and financial management, the Project Lead Partner interviewed was satisfied with the cooperation with both the various project partners (public institutions and service providers) as well as OP authorities. The fluctuation of staff is however very high at ALOGEA itself as well as the partner institutions which makes it difficult to maintain good contact with specific contact persons within these relevant institutions. The project is however planning to apply for ERDF funding again in the next programming period (Questionnaire Project ALOGEA).

4.9

References

 Préfecture de région LR (2007), Programme Opérationnel « Competitivité et Emploi » (2007-2013) Languedoc-Roussillon, Volume 2 : Stratégie régionale, Axes prioritaires, Maquette financière, Dispositions de mise en œuvre, Version of 18 September 2007.

 Languedoc-Roussillon (2012), Rapport Annuel D’Execution – Objectif Competitivité Régionale et Emploi, Programme Opérationnel FEDER, Année 2011, 28 June 2012.

4.10

Managing Authority

Stéphane Nguyen, MA OP Languedoc-Roussillon, Conseil Régional Languedoc-Roussillon, 17.07.2013

Vertical Partner: DATAR

Mickael Vaillant, French Regional Development Policy Agency DATAR, National Coordination of Structural Funds OPs, 18.07.2013

Monitoring Committee

Florent Martiche, MC member, Conseil Général des Pyrénées- Orientales, Pôle Europe / Affaires transfrontalières, 2.08.2013

Project leader

David Spanghero & Baptiste Raymond, ALOGEA, Responsible for the Management Service of the Energy, sustainable development and rehabilitation services, Aude (Languedoc-Roussillon), 21.08.2013

5.

ERDF OP NORTH EAST ENGLAND